OSX should be an option for all computers

[dukebound85]

Apple says they are a hardware company

If they were to license their OS to other manufacturers, they could make a nice premium, gain exposure for their own software, influence leverdge for the gaming market, etc

They will still make their nice computers that many will still continue to get, as they are nice

However, I think Apple could really benefit if they allow others to use the OS

 

[SnowLeopard2008]

No... they would have to support all types of hardware and then we'd get something called Windows 2.0. It's hard to maintain a quality user experience on varying types of hardware.

 

[thegoldenmackid]

They wouldn't benefit, they would get too big, too many incompatibilities. One reason why they have a great reputation is because of the unique quality control they have.

 

[ian.maffett]

By keeping the hardware standard they ensure their updates are functional across the board. I am sure you can tell by looking at this board that the variants of software alone cause issues with users. If the hardware varied for OSX they would quickly approach PCs when comparing machines with hardware. Still wouldn't have the software problems, though - ie: registry & viral issues, etc.

 

[techfreak85]

Apple makes software, to sell its hardware. Their Software is pretty much the only reason their Hardware sells.
So, they would never go for it.

 

[andrew upstairs]

They already tried it. It didn't work.

 

[dukebound85]

Apple makes software, to sell its hardware. Their Software is pretty much the only reason their Hardware sells.
So, they would never go for it.

By that logic, without their software, noone would buy the hardware

However, people have no problem buying ipods, displays, and I know people would still pay for an Apple computer on design alone

Now think of the extra revenue they would get from licensing it

It would be a positive feedback. OSX would be more greatly adopted, more software would utilize OSX, more people would look at APple's computers just by the increased prevalenece of OSX

Markets now non-existant for Apple would be created

They already tried it. It didn't work.

the landscape now is dramatically different than it was 15 years ago

 

[techfreak85]

By that logic, without their software, noone would buy the hardware

Thats exactly what I just said. (for Macs anyway)

However, people have no problem buying ipods, displays, and I know people would still pay for an Apple computer on design alone

Really? The Only reason is because it is "stylish". Most people when it comes to computers, (who are not Celebs or 15 year old girls,) would rather have something that has a better price. With the same quality/value OS on $500 machine, vs a $2000, with all the same hardware, I wonder which one people are going to choose?

Now think of the extra revenue they would get from licensing it

Market-share, not revenue. Hardware sales would go down DRASTICALLY.

It would be a positive feedback. OSX would be more greatly adopted, more software would utilize OSX, more people would look at APple's computers just by the increased prevalenece of OSX

They would look at them, and then return to point #2.

The way it might be good for them is more people framiliar with the Apple name/ products. (As if thats an issue).

(Sorry Duke about being so negative today.)

 

[zap2]

They already tried it. It didn't work.

When their software was weakest(when compared to Windows)

I think their golden time would have been late in XP's life, and when Vista was bombing. I think with Windows 7 so close, the PR nightmare is gone for MS,and so is Apple's biggest chance to jump into the OS world


That said, Apple likely is quite happy with the set up now

 

[MisterMe]

When their software was weakest(when compared to Windows)

...

Um-m-m-m, no. While Apple supported other hardware manufacturers, the extant version of Windows was not Windows XP. It was Windows 95. A substantial portion of the Windows installed base was still Windows 3.0/3.1. The notion that even Windows 95 was superior to the Mac was a Windows fanboy delusion. During the Windows 95 European introduction, the presenter (from Compaq IIRC) had to do his part of the presentation using a PowerBook because his Wintel laptop crapped-out.

 

[Dybbuk]

Yes, Apple is in a very bad situation right now. They should definitely make this radical change before they go bankrupt, which seems inevitable at this rate.

 

[dukebound85]

Yes, Apple is in a very bad situation right now. They should definitely make this radical change before they go bankrupt, which seems inevitable at this rate.

you do realize no buisness model is static over a long enough period of time right?

im not saying apple is doing bad, but to think their model is the best possible and should never change is just fooling yourself

 

[zap2]

Um-m-m-m, no. While Apple supported other hardware manufacturers, the extant version of Windows was not Windows XP. It was Windows 95. A substantial portion of the Windows installed base was still Windows 3.0/3.1. The notion that even Windows 95 was superior to the Mac was a Windows fanboy delusion. During the Windows 95 European introduction, the presenter (from Compaq IIRC) had to do his part of the presentation using a PowerBook because his Wintel laptop crapped-out.

I'm full aware it was Windows 95, and please don't start throwing the fanboy word around, it doesn't do anyone any good.

The amount of users of Apple's products then versus now would seem to agree with me. I do supposed which OS is best is a personal call, so I should say I think Windows 95 was a large step forward for Windows, based off my use. Also you'll note I never said Windows 95 was to "superior" Mac OS at the time.

 

[MisterMe]

I'm full aware it was Windows 95, and please don't start throwing the fanboy word around, it doesn't do anyone any good.

The amount of users of Apple's products then versus now would seem to agree with me. I do supposed which OS is best is a personal call, so I should say I think Windows 95 was a large step forward for Windows, based off my use. Also you'll note I never said Windows 95 was to "superior" Mac OS at the time.

There is no need to get snippy. You are the one who used the term weak when you compared the Mac OS to Windows. If you can't take it when people call you on the things you write, then you should be clearer about what you mean. I gather that when you say weak, you really mean less popular.

 

[dejo]

...on $500 machine, vs a $2000, with all the same hardware

Source?

 

[thegoldenmackid]

Apple makes software, to sell its hardware. Their Software is pretty much the only reason their Hardware sells.
So, they would never go for it.

No, there are plenty of people that have Macs that (stupidly) run Boot Camp 99% of the time.

 

[MythicFrost]

No, there are plenty of people that have Macs that (stupidly) run Boot Camp 99% of the time.

did you just call everyone who uses Boot Camp a lot stupid? or did I misread that? lol

 

[thegoldenmackid]

did you just call everyone who uses Boot Camp a lot stupid? or did I misread that? lol

No, just those that run Windows 99% of the time.

 

[MythicFrost]

Why is it stupid to run Windows even 100% on a Mac machine?
You get windows without the crashes ?

Kind Regards

 

[Kristenn]

No. Not again. Please no...

 

[kate-willbury]

No, just those that run Windows 99% of the time.

i run win 7 on my macbook 99% of the time. much better than SL.

i also ran hackintosh perfectly on my cheap $400 htpc.

 

[djellison]

more people would look at APple's computers just by the increased prevalenece of OSX

No they wouldn't. Well - they would, but only to laugh at the prices. They'd see OSX running just as well on a £400 desktop than a £2000 Mac Pro and go "well screw that, I'll stick to this Windows box of mine running OSX"

 

[opeter]

Apples only chance to stay in the computer business is the model, they are doing now and did all the time (so the one, where they are packaging and bounding the software to their hardware). If they would release their OS to any x86 platform, they would die in the shortest time (see: Be Inc. and their BeOS).

I would never-ever buy an Apple computer, if the MacOS could be legally run on any kind of PC hardware.

Do you remember the times of Mac clones? The clones of that time were faster than the computers, that Apple had in their selling programs and not only that, the were better expandable (upgradable) - because of somehow standard PC ATX cases in most cases - and the main point: they were cheaper, than the Apple Macs.

I was a happy user of an Umax Pulsar clone.

 

[BongoBanger]

No... they would have to support all types of hardware and then we'd get something called Windows 2.0. It's hard to maintain a quality user experience on varying types of hardware.

QFT.

Macs are what they are because they don't have all the headaches that go with trying to design an OS for multiple hardware configurations.

 

[mags631]

im not saying apple is doing bad, but to think their model is the best possible and should never change is just fooling yourself

Let's be clear, Apple is doing great by the current numbers and Apple does not even come close to qualifying as being "static". They are turning out new products and investing in new markets, etc. Just because Apple isn't going after the (kinds of) markets you prefer does not mean they are sitting on their hands.

That said, one business argument for Apple licensing their OS and dropping hardware is profit margins. Compare Apple's with Microsoft's -- Microsoft, even at its worst, makes better margins than Apple does at its best.